Why is xscreensaver removed in favor of gnome-screensaver? gnome-screensaver does not do DPMS, so my monitor stays on all the time boiling the cathodes away. gnome-screensaver doesn't have the eyecandy that xscreensaver has. In short, it seems a far less capable replacement.
So why was xscreensaver removed?
On 2/16/06, David D. Hagood wowbagger@sktc.net wrote:
Why is xscreensaver removed in favor of gnome-screensaver? gnome-screensaver does not do DPMS, so my monitor stays on all the time boiling the cathodes away. gnome-screensaver doesn't have the eyecandy that xscreensaver has. In short, it seems a far less capable replacement.
I think gnome-screensaver's upstream webpages explain the long term advantages http://live.gnome.org/GnomeScreensaver is xscreensaver using dbus controls? does xscreenssaver allow switching users from the locked dialog? does xscreensaver allow for system level mandatory policy definitions with regard to how it can be configured?
You might not understand, in the short-term, the long-term benefits to moving to a solution which allows these things.. but they are much more useful features than being able to run arbitrary eyecandy... especially on multi-user systems/networks.
DPMS is being handled by gnome-power-manager assuming you have all the updates applied Desktop->Preferences->More Preferences->Power Management or right click on the power management icon in the panel if its visible
-jef
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
is xscreensaver using dbus controls? does xscreenssaver allow switching users from the locked dialog? does xscreensaver allow for system level mandatory policy definitions with regard to how it can be configured?
And why should those things be in *gnome-screensaver* rather than being ported to xscreensaver?
You might not understand, in the short-term, the long-term benefits to
And here we go with what is becoming the standard line from the Gnome team - "You stupid user, you don't know what is good for you, how dare you question us!"
I understand just fine about moving forward. I also understand that moving *forward* involve progression, not regression. I understand that you don't replace a system that is in production and working with a completely inferior product.
DPMS is being handled by gnome-power-manager assuming you have all the updates applied Desktop->Preferences->More Preferences->Power Management
Actually, it is NOT being handled by gnome-power-manager, as several other messages on that subject have already discussed.
Moreover, again - why does this need to be a *Gnome* specific thing?
Yes, JWZ is not maintaining xscreensaver, so maybe it is time for somebody else to take it over - perhaps the folks working on gnome-screensaver. However, there is no reason why it needs to be Gnome specific.
Hi
Yes, JWZ is not maintaining xscreensaver, so maybe it is time for somebody else to take it over - perhaps the folks working on gnome-screensaver. However, there is no reason why it needs to be Gnome specific.
KDE already has its own screensavers. If you want to maintain and develop xscreensaver further, more power to you.
David D. Hagood (wowbagger@sktc.net) said:
And why should those things be in *gnome-screensaver* rather than being ported to xscreensaver?
Perhaps the xscreensaver maintainer may not want to move in that direction.
Yes, JWZ is not maintaining xscreensaver, so maybe it is time for somebody else to take it over - perhaps the folks working on gnome-screensaver.
I'm pretty sure JWZ is still doing releases.
Bill
On 2/16/06, David D. Hagood wowbagger@sktc.net wrote:
And why should those things be in *gnome-screensaver* rather than being ported to xscreensaver?
You'd have to ask the xscreensaver developer about that. Sometimes developers don't agree as to featuresets and priorities and new codebases are created because agreement cannot be reached. This could be one of those times.
And here we go with what is becoming the standard line from the Gnome team - "You stupid user, you don't know what is good for you, how dare you question us!"
I am not part of the gnome team.. I am a user. And at no point did i call you stupid. Being uninformed isn't being stupid. Not recognizing long-term benefits which you personally aren't going to make use of isn't being stupid.
I'm pointing out that there are long term benefits which you may not recognize as being important. Would you rather I assume that you had infinite knowledge and understanding of the differences between gnome-screensaver and xscreensaver and assume that your original question was only posted as a retorical device to start a bitch session? I could treat you that way, but I'd rather not. Instead I'm assuming your question is prompted by a genuine lack of information on the subject deserving of as thoughtful an explanation as I can provide, constrained by the bounds of my own human failings, and references to authorative information so that you can make an effort to learn more by reading the reference material I provide.
I understand just fine about moving forward. I also understand that moving *forward* involve progression, not regression.
Actually progress quite frequently involves regressions. Progress isn't a linear process where every competing demand can be enhanced simutenously. Progress is messy and is measured as net benefit. And in this case i believe that the there is a net benefit even though some users, like yourself, will feel a short-term regression until the bits that allow gnome-screensaver to use all the screenies in xscreensaver-extras have been correctly worked out. I understand that
Actually, it is NOT being handled by gnome-power-manager, as several other messages on that subject have already discussed.
Bugs are bugs, and we are in the testing process. gnome-power-manager is there to provide DPMS support for the gnome desktop. I'm very confident the bugs will get sorted out during the remaining time before fc5.
Moreover, again - why does this need to be a *Gnome* specific thing?
Yes, JWZ is not maintaining xscreensaver, so maybe it is time for somebody else to take it over - perhaps the folks working on gnome-screensaver. However, there is no reason why it needs to be Gnome specific.
just because it has gnome in the name means its gnome specific? Did you read the page i reference... the goal is to build a desktop neutral approach so each desktop can integrate screensaver control into its UI in a way that makes sense for that desktop environment. Would you feel better if it were named freedesktop.org-screensaver?
-jef
On 2/16/06, Jeff Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com wrote:
Removed parts where Jeff points out http://wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html?tw=wn_index_2
just because it has gnome in the name means its gnome specific? Did you read the page i reference... the goal is to build a desktop neutral approach so each desktop can integrate screensaver control into its UI in a way that makes sense for that desktop environment. Would you feel better if it were named freedesktop.org-screensaver?
-jef
I would say yes.. that would be the best bet for many of these neutral items. The word GNOME and KDE have become very heavy in the brain of a lot of people. The 'marketing' of the words puts people into For/Against camps which makes it hard to figure out when something is not another marketing win for one side or the other.
I figure that this article kind of shows what might be happening.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm
-- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
On 2/16/06, Stephen J. Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
I would say yes.. that would be the best bet for many of these neutral items. The word GNOME and KDE have become very heavy in the brain of a lot of people.
Sad but true. I would imagine over time that the neutralish bits of gnome-screensaver will be put into a neutralish named package as kde and gnome converge towards the same neutralish solution at the developer level just to keep users from freaking out for having something named gnome on their gnome desktopless system.
The same sort of thing happens at the application level. I've seen complaints about the "evolution-data-server" package being installed even though "evolution" isn't.
I bet Fedora Directory Server and any other Fedora branded codebases will run into the same sort of brainwave impendance if they make the leap to wide distribution.
-jef
tor, 16 02 2006 kl. 22:56 -0500, skrev Jeff Spaleta:
The same sort of thing happens at the application level. I've seen complaints about the "evolution-data-server" package being installed even though "evolution" isn't.
Sometimes KDE users are a bit antsy when it comes to non-KDE packages on their system. I don't generally complain because I have QT and arts installed on my default GNOME system, I mean sure they take up space and I don't need them in my daily life - but it's a binary upgrade - I suffer no illeffects from having them installed, instead it enables me to easily get KDE/QT programs running on my machine.
Dependencies are normally not installed just for kicks. If the biggest complaint about Fedora for anyone is a few unwanted dependencies they should praise themselves lucky, their system works so well they have time to spare to spot such things that don't apply on their specific system.
- David
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On 2/16/06, David D. Hagood wowbagger@sktc.net wrote:
I am not part of the gnome team.. I am a user. And at no point did i call you stupid. Being uninformed isn't being stupid. Not recognizing long-term benefits which you personally aren't going to make use of isn't being stupid.
Quoting your original response:
You might not understand, in the short-term, the long-term benefits to
Now, had you said something along the lines of "Well, have you looked at the homepage for gnome-screensaver (url)? There are some good future directions they want to go in" I would not have reacted at I did. However, your response was one of "You don't agree, so you must not understand." Perhaps I do understand, but I think they are missing some points?
Nor did I ever say you were a member of the Gnome devel team - rather, I pointed out the attitude that has become prevalent in the Gnome universe, as quoted in several commentaries online, that if somebody dares to criticize the direction Gnome is going in to imply the person so questioning is somehow not as clueful as the Gnome developers.
I'm pointing out that there are long term benefits which you may not recognize as being important.
And again, you start from the assumption that the Gnome way is right, and if I don't agree I must be the one who is wrong. Perhaps these "long-term benefits" are NOT benefits?
Mind you, I think there ARE good ideas there. However, I am just pointing out why I responded to your response as I did - you started off with an assumption that you were not questioning. In my 20 years of designing software, one thing I've learned is to ALWAYS question your assumptions. It ain't what we don't know, it's what we know that's wrong, as Pogo said.
just because it has gnome in the name means its gnome specific? Did
Because that is what having Gnome in the name means.
Would you feel better if it were named freedesktop.org-screensaver?
Perhaps not such a long name, but yes, one that is more neutral than GnomeScreensaver. How about xscreensaver-ng?
On 2/16/06, David D. Hagood wowbagger@sktc.net wrote:
Nor did I ever say you were a member of the Gnome devel team - rather, I pointed out the attitude that has become prevalent in the Gnome universe, as quoted in several commentaries online
Please stop dragging general misconceptions about how the gnome development team responses into this discussion. I am not a member of the gnome development team and how i response to people has no bearing on the attitudes of the gnome developmers. I am a user who regularly uses fluxbox,xfce,gnome,fvwm and infrequently uses kde and cde depending on the system defaults in question. Will you ascribe my personal failings to represent the attitudes of developers of xfce as easily.. i hope not. I fully admit I'm a rude, insensitive, uncaring know-it-all bastard and what desktop I use has little to know influence on that fact.
And again, you start from the assumption that the Gnome way is right, and if I don't agree I must be the one who is wrong. Perhaps these "long-term benefits" are NOT benefits?
Why has this discussion become a black and white discussion of right versus wrong? Having the ability to switch users from the unlock dialog isn't a benefit? Being able to implement "lockdown" per-user configurations at the system level as the system admin on a multuser network easily isn't a benefit? I'd appeciate knowing your reasons for seeing these things as non-benefits. I promise not to feel stupid when you point out a downside that is obvious once I'm told about it.
Mind you, I think there ARE good ideas there. However, I am just pointing out why I responded to your response as I did - you started off with an assumption that you were not questioning. In my 20 years of designing software, one thing I've learned is to ALWAYS question your assumptions.
Indeed, I also assumed that participating in this discussion might be worthwhile. I was clearly mistaken.
Perhaps not such a long name, but yes, one that is more neutral than GnomeScreensaver. How about xscreensaver-ng?
I don't think reusing the name "xscreensaver" is appropriate, and will lead to confusion that this is a closely related fork of the original codebase when it is not.
--jef"a rose by any other name will not only smells as sweet, but will also appearently lead to less reactionary behavior by people who have a deep seated bias against roses"spaleta
On 2/16/06, Jeff Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/16/06, David D. Hagood wowbagger@sktc.net wrote:
Why is xscreensaver removed in favor of gnome-screensaver? gnome-screensaver does not do DPMS, so my monitor stays on all the time boiling the cathodes away. gnome-screensaver doesn't have the eyecandy that xscreensaver has. In short, it seems a far less capable replacement.
I think gnome-screensaver's upstream webpages explain the long term advantages http://live.gnome.org/GnomeScreensaver is xscreensaver using dbus controls? does xscreenssaver allow switching users from the locked dialog? does xscreensaver allow for system level mandatory policy definitions with regard to how it can be configured?
You might not understand, in the short-term, the long-term benefits to moving to a solution which allows these things.. but they are much more useful features than being able to run arbitrary eyecandy... especially on multi-user systems/networks.
DPMS is being handled by gnome-power-manager assuming you have all the updates applied Desktop->Preferences->More Preferences->Power Management or right click on the power management icon in the panel if its visible
Hmm. I haven't noticed xscreensaver being replaced by gnome-screensaver. I still have xscreensaver running with the Rawhide updates of today. However, the 3D screensavers seem broken right now. Hmm.
With xscreensaver, the gnome-power-manager popups are being displayed on top of the screensaver display. The seems like a bug. Will this be prevented with gnome-screensaver?
Will the screensavers in xscreensaver be ported to gnome-screensaver? The selection in gnome-screensaver is pretty lame. There are several specific screensavers I would like to see retained: vermiculate VidWhacker SuperQuadratics Substrate Ripples Pinion Noof MirrorBlob Intermomentary HyperTorus Interaggregate GLSnake GLSlideshow GLEidescope GFlux FuzzyFlakes Flurry FlipScreen3D Distort DangerBall Carousel Bumps BlockTube
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 09:11:40PM -0500, Miles Lane wrote:
Will the screensavers in xscreensaver be ported to gnome-screensaver?
They're not supposed to require porting, but gnome-screensaver requires a .desktop file to be present to describe each of the screensavers which it will use, and xscreensaver doesn't provide them.
The %post and %trigger scripts in the gnome-screensaver package are supposed to create these .desktop files automatically. This didn't used to work perfectly, but it should be fixed as of 2.13.90-4, so if you're still seeing the problem with that version, we need to know.
HTH,
Nalin
On 2/17/06, Nalin Dahyabhai nalin@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 09:11:40PM -0500, Miles Lane wrote:
Will the screensavers in xscreensaver be ported to gnome-screensaver?
They're not supposed to require porting, but gnome-screensaver requires a .desktop file to be present to describe each of the screensavers which it will use, and xscreensaver doesn't provide them.
The %post and %trigger scripts in the gnome-screensaver package are supposed to create these .desktop files automatically. This didn't used to work perfectly, but it should be fixed as of 2.13.90-4, so if you're still seeing the problem with that version, we need to know.
Okay, I removed gnome-screensaver and all the xscreensaver packages and reinstalled them (xscreensaver-base didn't get installed). Now I see the xscreensaver savers listed in the gnome-screensaver configuration dialog.
A problem I have with gnome-screensaver is that I cannot configure the xscreensaver savers. For example, I cannot tell any of the savers that use images from the hard drive where to find the images. I cannot specify the Glidescope tube size, speed, and movement settings. I can't tell the Interaggregate or Substrate savers how many seeds to use, etc.
The rendering of the Superquadratics saver is all messed up. Hidden sides are sometimes being rendered in front, munging the forms. This problem is also showing up with Polyhedra, Menger, Lament, Juggler3D, Gears, GLHanoi, Flying Toasters, FlipFlop, Cube 21, etc.
I only see "4D Hypertorus" (which appears to map to the xscreensaver ribbon hypertorus saver. I prefer the solid (transparent) hypertorus, but cannot find it in the savers list.
Another issue is that "popsquares" saver isn't working at all. Oddly, there is also a "Pop art squares" saver that does work. The "popsquares" entry is at the bottom of the savers list.
One more issue is that the gnome-screensaver "fade out" when it starts to display a screensaver takes way too long. I think the fade should last, at most, about four seconds. Right now, it seems to take about ten seconds to fade out before starting to display the screensaver.
Thanks, Miles
On 2/18/06, Miles Lane miles.lane@gmail.com wrote:
One more issue is that the gnome-screensaver "fade out" when it starts to display a screensaver takes way too long. I think the fade should last, at most, about four seconds. Right now, it seems to take about ten seconds to fade out before starting to display the screensaver.
I think this is to give a grace period so you can notice the screensaver activating and do something before the screen gets locked. I don't think the current way of doing it is very good. Instead, the screensaver should start normally, without a long fade in, but extend the grace period into the running of the screensaver a bit.
IMO, the biggest problem with gnome-screensaver is that fullscreen apps are used to xscreensaver and this means that games and movie players won't be able to stop the screensaver from starting. The gnome-screensaver FAQ mentions that there is a way to stop the screensaver using dbus (which totem is using), but it may be some time before that makes it into other applications (if ever). It would be great if gnome-screensaver could detect what would normally be a 'stop screensaver' request for xscreensaver and act on it appropriately.
n0dalus.
On 2/17/06, n0dalus n0dalus+redhat@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/18/06, Miles Lane miles.lane@gmail.com wrote:
One more issue is that the gnome-screensaver "fade out" when it starts to display a screensaver takes way too long. I think the fade should last, at most, about four seconds. Right now, it seems to take about ten seconds to fade out before starting to display the screensaver.
I think this is to give a grace period so you can notice the screensaver activating and do something before the screen gets locked. I don't think the current way of doing it is very good. Instead, the screensaver should start normally, without a long fade in, but extend the grace period into the running of the screensaver a bit.
Wow, that would be a huge improvement! Maybe some Gnome folks at Redhat could submit this change or maintain a patch for it? If I am not mistaken, the vast majority of key Gnome development people still work for Ximian/Novell, so I don't know how practical this could be.
Miles
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 13:08 -0500, Miles Lane wrote:
On 2/17/06, n0dalus n0dalus+redhat@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/18/06, Miles Lane miles.lane@gmail.com wrote:
One more issue is that the gnome-screensaver "fade out" when it starts to display a screensaver takes way too long. I think the fade should last, at most, about four seconds. Right now, it seems to take about ten seconds to fade out before starting to display the screensaver.
I think this is to give a grace period so you can notice the screensaver activating and do something before the screen gets locked. I don't think the current way of doing it is very good. Instead, the screensaver should start normally, without a long fade in, but extend the grace period into the running of the screensaver a bit.
Wow, that would be a huge improvement! Maybe some Gnome folks at Redhat could submit this change or maintain a patch for it? If I am not mistaken, the vast majority of key Gnome development people still work for Ximian/Novell, so I don't know how practical this could be.
I'm sure interesting proposals like this will be most welcome on screensaver-list@gnome.org
Matthias
On 2/17/06, Miles Lane miles.lane@gmail.com wrote:
A problem I have with gnome-screensaver is that I cannot configure the xscreensaver savers.
This is a delibrate choice made in how the screensavers are presented as .desktop files. The explanation for this decision is made in he upstream FAQ: http://live.gnome.org/GnomeScreensaver_2fFrequentlyAskedQuestions
-jef
On 2/17/06, Jeff Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/17/06, Miles Lane miles.lane@gmail.com wrote:
A problem I have with gnome-screensaver is that I cannot configure the xscreensaver savers.
This is a delibrate choice made in how the screensavers are presented as .desktop files. The explanation for this decision is made in he upstream FAQ: http://live.gnome.org/GnomeScreensaver_2fFrequentlyAskedQuestions
Thanks Jeff.
A quote from that page: ---------- Why doesn't the screensaver preferences tool allow me to change the settings for the theme? We are trying to take a different approach. We would prefer for the themes to simply work. [...] There are a few reasons for this approach. One of them is to simplify the UI and make it easier for the user. Another reason is so that system administrators can more easily control (or lock down) the settings. ----------
Personally, I think the Gnome developers' know-it-all attitude is stupid and offensive. Dang it! They take their bloody "present no options to the users" too far! Idiots!
I keep wanting Gnome to be great, but this Ximian attitude and design approach keeps fouling the desktop experience. ARGH! They are _breaking_ screensavers.
Miles
On 2/17/06, Miles Lane miles.lane@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I think the Gnome developers' know-it-all attitude is stupid and offensive. Dang it! They take their bloody "present no options to the users" too far! Idiots!
Blatant name calling doesn't make for a constructive debate. I humbly suggest you make an effort to remove the emtionally loaded language when you are trying to make a point. If you want to drag this discussion down into the realm of overly generalized name-calling to a community of people, I'll be more than happy to do this with you in private conversation.
Choosing to use this sort of emtional outburt in a public discussion is not helpful and only points out that you are also capable of "going to far" with your overreaching assumption making. I'm not fond of blatant hypocrisy, so please try to keep your over-reaching assumption making about the entire gnome development community out of this discussion.
If you have a problem with the decision making, read up on previous discussion about gnome-screesaver and make rational arguments to the upstream developers. There maybe a way forward to change how this works by incorporated per-user configs into GConf for individual screensavers and still have site wide policy without disrupting UI. But you'll have to care enough about the issue to keep your emtions in check and handle yourself maturely in the discussion. Calling the people you are trying to convince to change their minds idiots has a particularly low probability of success especially if you don't have an established working relationship with them as peers.
-jef
From: "Jeff Spaleta" jspaleta@gmail.com Reply-To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases fedora-test-list@redhat.com To: "For testers of Fedora Core development releases" fedora-test-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: Why is xscreensaver removed in favor of gnome-screensaver Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:22:38 -0500
On 2/17/06, Miles Lane miles.lane@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I think the Gnome developers' know-it-all attitude is stupid and offensive. Dang it! They take their bloody "present no options to the users" too far! Idiots!
I would not label the Gnome developers as idiots as Linus Torvalds did over the gnome print issue but I do find it frustrating at times that their "ease of use" and it "just works" ideas to be in conflict with a lack of user control.
For example I liked playing with the xmatrix controls just to see what they did. Even if that was a bad idea because xmatrix seems to chew up a lot of cpu and battery life and at one time did nasty things to memory.
I usually just leave a blank screen as a screensaver most of the time to save battery but it is fun to play sometimes while you are waiting for a download to finish. I guess thats why there will probally never be just one desktop. Some like control, some like no controls. Luckily we have lots of choices. Lets start a flame war over something more interesting. How about we start one on ndiswrapper. Boy we should nuke those 8k stack options and tell windows driver fanboys to go jump in a lake. 4k stacks are so much better for performance. There, I feel much better now !
On 2/17/06, Jeff Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/17/06, Miles Lane miles.lane@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I think the Gnome developers' know-it-all attitude is stupid and offensive. Dang it! They take their bloody "present no options to the users" too far! Idiots!
Blatant name calling doesn't make for a constructive debate. I humbly suggest you make an effort to remove the emtionally loaded language when you are trying to make a point. If you want to drag this discussion down into the realm of overly generalized name-calling to a community of people, I'll be more than happy to do this with you in private conversation.
Choosing to use this sort of emtional outburt in a public discussion is not helpful and only points out that you are also capable of "going to far" with your overreaching assumption making. I'm not fond of blatant hypocrisy, so please try to keep your over-reaching assumption making about the entire gnome development community out of this discussion.
If you have a problem with the decision making, read up on previous discussion about gnome-screesaver and make rational arguments to the upstream developers. There maybe a way forward to change how this works by incorporated per-user configs into GConf for individual screensavers and still have site wide policy without disrupting UI. But you'll have to care enough about the issue to keep your emtions in check and handle yourself maturely in the discussion. Calling the people you are trying to convince to change their minds idiots has a particularly low probability of success especially if you don't have an established working relationship with them as peers.
I used to have an established working relationship with them. Then Ximian got the "simplified UI" bug and all my pleas and reasoned arguments were discarded. Now this issue of user options is a bit of an open wound for me. I have volunteered _years_ to Linux development. I wouldn't be so frustrated if this general issue of empowering Gnome users were resolved. It seems it will take someone else to cause a shift in the "oversimplified UI" policy, because I have no desire to wade into Gnome bugzilla again and be blown off by Jeff Waugh and others. The great thing about submitting bugs to the Evolution project was that a lot of them got addressed in the early days. I had a huge positive influence back then. Slowly, that changed and my bug reports were left to languish before being closed in great waves. I know Luis Villa (once Gnome Bugzilla/Test dude) and we worked together well for a while. Eventually, important issues I raised (e.g. the lameness of Yelp) were ignored so often I just couldn't continue.
Sad, Miles
On 2/18/06, Miles Lane miles.lane@gmail.com wrote:
A quote from that page:
Why doesn't the screensaver preferences tool allow me to change the settings for the theme? We are trying to take a different approach. We would prefer for the themes to simply work. [...] There are a few reasons for this approach. One of them is to simplify the UI and make it easier for the user. Another reason is so that system administrators can more easily control (or lock down) the settings.
Personally, I think the Gnome developers' know-it-all attitude is stupid and offensive. Dang it! They take their bloody "present no options to the users" too far! Idiots!
I'm sure these particular Gnome developers mean well, and I don't see the point in getting angry at them.
I agree that neither of the reasons they list are very good. Having one extra button to open a second dialogue hardly clutters the UI, and makes it no harder for the user. To let system admins lock down settings, they should simply provide a "Don't show or let users open advanced controls." key. I think it's still a good concept to provide multiple variations of some of the screensavers in the list, but that's not mutually exclusive to allowing advanced controls.
If someone presents a well-formed and polite request for them to allow advanced settings, I think we could get further in resolving this issue.
n0dalus.
On 2/17/06, n0dalus n0dalus+redhat@gmail.com wrote: [...]
I'm sure these particular Gnome developers mean well, and I don't see the point in getting angry at them.
Well, all the screensavers that take images from a user specified directory are broken by the current system, afaict.
I agree that neither of the reasons they list are very good. Having one extra button to open a second dialogue hardly clutters the UI, and makes it no harder for the user. To let system admins lock down settings, they should simply provide a "Don't show or let users open advanced controls." key. I think it's still a good concept to provide multiple variations of some of the screensavers in the list, but that's not mutually exclusive to allowing advanced controls.
Yes, I agree. What I find upsetting is that this is such an obvious solution to many usability issues in Gnome and yet this approach is not getting implemented. Much of my frustration would vanish if I saw signs that this reasonable attitude to empowering users was adopted. If you are capable of making this case and triggering a shift, you will have my profound gratitude.
Here a similar situation: Gnome has given us "Spatial" browsing versus Hierarchical file browsing. Why can't I make all my folder icons default to "Browse Hierarchically?" The functionality is there, but only if I right-click on a folder icon and select "Browse Folder." This is buried functionality and clunky UI. I like the "Spatial" UI for its presentation of media files and actions, but it breaks down for file browsing. I really dislike cluttering my desktop with folder windows.
Yes, I know that there are avid fans of the "Spatial" UI, but please let me choose defaulting to hierarchical directory browsing.
Another example is the current system of theming the Gnome desktop. If you look at the available themes, there are loads of themes that are exactly the same, but have different color schemes. I remember when this was getting implemented. I kept suggesting that the developers allow users to simply colorize the themes. This was rejected because it would allow newbies to create color schemes that broke the usability (unreadable text, etc). I did my best to explain that there were ways around these problems, but my arguments were rejected. Now I will have to appeal to some developer to create my favorite screensaver settings and add it to the list. I have to appeal to a developer to give me the theme settings I want. How usable it that?
If someone presents a well-formed and polite request for them to allow advanced settings, I think we could get further in resolving this issue.
I have tried conversing with the developers in bug reports at Gnome.org, in e-mail and forums in years past. At one time I was one of the most prolific reporters of bugs for Gnome (~450 for Evolution, alone, and Ximian gave me a PalmPilot VII as a gift). I have not been some sort of screaming loony. When the "simplify the UI at all costs" mania hit, and after many fruitless attempts to get them to consider preserving options for users, I gave up and went to using KDE for a couple of years.
Miles
On 2/17/06, Miles Lane miles.lane@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/17/06, n0dalus n0dalus+redhat@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
I agree that neither of the reasons they list are very good. Having one extra button to open a second dialogue hardly clutters the UI, and makes it no harder for the user. To let system admins lock down settings, they should simply provide a "Don't show or let users open advanced controls." key. I think it's still a good concept to provide multiple variations of some of the screensavers in the list, but that's not mutually exclusive to allowing advanced controls.
Yes, I agree. What I find upsetting is that this is such an obvious solution to many usability issues in Gnome and yet this approach is not getting implemented. Much of my frustration would vanish if I saw signs that this reasonable attitude to empowering users was adopted. If you are capable of making this case and triggering a shift, you will have my profound gratitude.
I would have to agree with you that the movement of Gnome away from user configurability is rather disappointing. Surely there is some balance to be reached between configurability and not complicating things. Many things such as the screensaver issues seem to be going toward the extreme of making configurability very difficult or impossible.
Here a similar situation: Gnome has given us "Spatial" browsing versus Hierarchical file browsing. Why can't I make all my folder icons default to "Browse Hierarchically?" The functionality is there, but only if I right-click on a folder icon and select "Browse Folder." This is buried functionality and clunky UI. I like the "Spatial" UI for its presentation of media files and actions, but it breaks down for file browsing. I really dislike cluttering my desktop with folder windows.
Yes, I know that there are avid fans of the "Spatial" UI, but please let me choose defaulting to hierarchical directory browsing.
I'm afraid you chose a bad example here; you can configure that :-) (thankfully). I cannot stand the spacial view in Nautilus either. Open up a Nautilus window, Edit -> Preferences -> Behavior[tab] -> Always open in browser windows[checkbox].
Jonathan
On 2/17/06, Jonathan Berry berryja@gmail.com wrote: [...]
I'm afraid you chose a bad example here; you can configure that :-) (thankfully). I cannot stand the spacial view in Nautilus either. Open up a Nautilus window, Edit -> Preferences -> Behavior[tab] -> Always open in browser windows[checkbox].
Well, no regrets there. If I hadn't used that example, I wouldn't have learned about this. Yea!
Thanks, Miles
Jonathan Berry wrote:
On 2/17/06, Miles Lane miles.lane@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I know that there are avid fans of the "Spatial" UI, but please let me choose defaulting to hierarchical directory browsing.
I'm afraid you chose a bad example here; you can configure that :-) (thankfully). I cannot stand the spacial view in Nautilus either. Open up a Nautilus window, Edit -> Preferences -> Behavior[tab] -> Always open in browser windows[checkbox].
Yes, but... wasn't that only added after users raised a major ruckus about the imposition of spatial mode?
James Jones
James Jones wrote:
Jonathan Berry wrote:
On 2/17/06, Miles Lane miles.lane@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I know that there are avid fans of the "Spatial" UI, but please let me choose defaulting to hierarchical directory browsing.
I'm afraid you chose a bad example here; you can configure that :-) (thankfully). I cannot stand the spacial view in Nautilus either. Open up a Nautilus window, Edit -> Preferences -> Behavior[tab] -> Always open in browser windows[checkbox].
Yes, but... wasn't that only added after users raised a major ruckus about the imposition of spatial mode?
James Jones
It was previously configurable as GConf key.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
James Jones wrote:
Jonathan Berry wrote:
On 2/17/06, Miles Lane miles.lane@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I know that there are avid fans of the "Spatial" UI, but please let me choose defaulting to hierarchical directory browsing.
I'm afraid you chose a bad example here; you can configure that :-) (thankfully). I cannot stand the spacial view in Nautilus either. Open up a Nautilus window, Edit -> Preferences -> Behavior[tab] -> Always open in browser windows[checkbox].
Yes, but... wasn't that only added after users raised a major ruckus about the imposition of spatial mode?
I guess there would be no use then in requesting either fedora or upstream nautilus to default to hierarchical mode rather than the current mode. The current mode quickly covers users desktops with windows for now reason...
The first thing we do at work for all our clients with a new Windows install is to modify the registry so that by default clicking any explorer icon / my computer etc. opens up explorer with the tree view on the left, and turn the show folder path as the explorer window title. This really helps people to take notice of where they are saving files on both local and shared disks; whether related to particular jobs, or product info, it helps people put files in the right place without creating desktop garbage (upteen open explorer single folder view windows, that they then have to close).
If we wanted Windows faults, I'm sure we would just buy Windows, rather than having the opportunity of smart / effective defaults in Fedora.
If it can't be a permanent change, perhaps the post install configuration could have this as an added option: Show folders using the efficient / smart single nautilus window v's Show folders using microsoft's dodgy and time wasting method :-)
DaveT.
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 17:53 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
James Jones wrote:
Jonathan Berry wrote:
. . .
Yes, but... wasn't that only added after users raised a major ruckus about the imposition of spatial mode?
It was previously configurable as GConf key.
-- Rahul
The Gnome bog-standard answer "Configurable as a GConf key" translates to "not user configurable" for most end users.
Whereas, a tick-box in the Nautilus preferences control panel could do the same thing with minimal pain.
It seems silly to put all the code in to modify the window behavior, and look-and-feel, and not go the extra 10% to write a means to configure it.
D.
Dave Atkins wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 17:53 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
James Jones wrote:
Jonathan Berry wrote:
. . .
Yes, but... wasn't that only added after users raised a major ruckus about the imposition of spatial mode?
It was previously configurable as GConf key.
-- Rahul
The Gnome bog-standard answer "Configurable as a GConf key" translates to "not user configurable" for most end users.
Whereas, a tick-box in the Nautilus preferences control panel could do the same thing with minimal pain.
It seems silly to put all the code in to modify the window behavior, and look-and-feel, and not go the extra 10% to write a means to configure it.
D.
Gconfig-editor is not even pulled in for default installations. This would make setting the toggles a little bit less user configurable.
I re-installed FC5T2 on a computer and did note that at least gnome-screensaver can be toggled off and does not need removed post-install.
In fairness, the program does work a little and seems somewhat basic. If you like bare-bones type of applications. Reconfigurability is of course less than desirable. (All, blank, one or none.)
Jim
On 2/17/06, n0dalus n0dalus+redhat@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that neither of the reasons they list are very good. Having one extra button to open a second dialogue hardly clutters the UI, and makes it no harder for the user. To let system admins lock down settings, they should simply provide a "Don't show or let users open advanced controls." key.
UI issues aside..you'd have to store the per-user configs somewhere... that means making room in GConf for per-xscreensaver-hack configuration keys. Which means creating schema for each and every xscreensaver-hack which could take per-user configs as well as keys which can be applied across all screensaver-hacks on a per-user basis. So that it could be locked down at a site policy level.
-jef
On 2/17/06, Jeff Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/17/06, n0dalus n0dalus+redhat@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that neither of the reasons they list are very good. Having one extra button to open a second dialogue hardly clutters the UI, and makes it no harder for the user. To let system admins lock down settings, they should simply provide a "Don't show or let users open advanced controls." key.
UI issues aside..you'd have to store the per-user configs somewhere... that means making room in GConf for per-xscreensaver-hack configuration keys. Which means creating schema for each and every xscreensaver-hack which could take per-user configs as well as keys which can be applied across all screensaver-hacks on a per-user basis. So that it could be locked down at a site policy level.
So, do you know who to contact to make this happen? Do you think this would be considered? Who would have to be convinced?
Miles
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 11:46 -0800, Miles Lane wrote:
On 2/17/06, Jeff Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/17/06, n0dalus n0dalus+redhat@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that neither of the reasons they list are very good. Having one extra button to open a second dialogue hardly clutters the UI, and makes it no harder for the user. To let system admins lock down settings, they should simply provide a "Don't show or let users open advanced controls." key.
UI issues aside..you'd have to store the per-user configs somewhere... that means making room in GConf for per-xscreensaver-hack configuration keys. Which means creating schema for each and every xscreensaver-hack which could take per-user configs as well as keys which can be applied across all screensaver-hacks on a per-user basis. So that it could be locked down at a site policy level.
So, do you know who to contact to make this happen? Do you think this would be considered? Who would have to be convinced?
As mentioned already, screensaver-list@gnome.org is the list to talk to. The only way to know if your ideas will be considered is to propose them there.
Matthias
On 2/18/06, Jeff Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com wrote:
UI issues aside..you'd have to store the per-user configs somewhere... that means making room in GConf for per-xscreensaver-hack configuration keys. Which means creating schema for each and every xscreensaver-hack which could take per-user configs as well as keys which can be applied across all screensaver-hacks on a per-user basis. So that it could be locked down at a site policy level.
I think you are making it sound like a bigger problem than it really is.
The way xscreensaver is set up means that only one key would need to be saved per custom screensaver (that is, a string of command line arguments which get passed to the screensaver.) You would not need to create schema for each and every "hack".
What I proposed is a global 'disable_all_advanced_config' key that would apply to all screensavers. If that doesn't provide enough lock-down capability, then I suppose a 'disable_advanced_config' key per screensaver (which is per .desktop file I suppose) could be used -- I still don't think this is unreasonably difficult to implement.
n0dalus.
On 2/17/06, n0dalus n0dalus+redhat@gmail.com wrote:
I think you are making it sound like a bigger problem than it really is.
I think you may be right.. but not in the way you describe it. Since gnome-screensaver uses .desktop files to define items in the list... the same mechanism that users can use to edit menu items on a per-user basis could be reused as the UI to edit screensaver .desktop files to change the arguments. Now whether or not gnome upstream has a mature way for user to edit things like menu items is a completely different can of worms. But since gnome-screensaver is re-using the .desktop file concept it should be the same sort of editting UI which is exposed for menu editting, if menu editting is ever exposed.
-jef
n0dalus wrote:
On 2/18/06, Miles Lane miles.lane@gmail.com wrote:
A quote from that page:
Why doesn't the screensaver preferences tool allow me to change the settings for the theme?
That is why I do not use it. You can choose a blank screen, an individual screensaver or all the screensavers. You cannot adjust the source for the text that some screensavers use. There are no controls.
Let's hope that GNOME does not decide to make breaks. Their attitude will be, "You don't need as brake pedal, you will eventually stop without one. We want to make things easier for the user and free up their foot to tap to the music."
We are trying to take a different approach. We would prefer for the themes to simply work. [...]
I would rather stop before I hit the car in front of me, a tree, or brick wall. Put back the brake pedal!
There are a few reasons for this approach. One of them is to simplify the UI and make it easier for the user.
Not even bothering to turn on the computer at all is simpler. Can we expect gnome-poweroff-forever?
Another reason is so that
system administrators can more easily control (or lock down) the settings.
What about gnome-admin-xscreensavers? If I am admin, I don't want to disable that which I enjoy to use. With xscreensaver-base only, you get a blank screensaver. What more would an administrator for other people desire than that. Would not even developing gnome-screensaver (Made for use on many desktops, Why gnome-screensaver name?)
Personally, I think the Gnome developers' know-it-all attitude is stupid and offensive. Dang it! They take their bloody "present no options to the users" too far! Idiots!
It is downright insane for developers to use this as a rational reason. If it is not very customizable by the user, it is a bad approach.
gnome-word is coming out. You can launch it, but it will choose the font that you want to use. It is just that easy. The program will even pick the proper picture that you want and the exactly correct font color and background.
In other words, Gnome developer attitude is plain hog slop. The only thing everything that the hog needed was removed to make it easier on the pig. If the pig dies because gnome thought that it would be best for the pig to not be nourished. It is best for the pig after all.
I'm sure these particular Gnome developers mean well, and I don't see the point in getting angry at them.
I agree that neither of the reasons they list are very good. Having one extra button to open a second dialogue hardly clutters the UI, and makes it no harder for the user. To let system admins lock down settings, they should simply provide a "Don't show or let users open advanced controls." key. I think it's still a good concept to provide multiple variations of some of the screensavers in the list, but that's not mutually exclusive to allowing advanced controls.
If someone presents a well-formed and polite request for them to allow advanced settings, I think we could get further in resolving this issue.
A docile approach in bugzilla usually amounts to a bug closed. We like it that way. I filed a bug report for nautilus and it was closed with a similar reason.
Jim
n0dalus.
Miles Lane wrote:
Personally, I think the Gnome developers' know-it-all attitude is stupid and offensive. Dang it! They take their bloody "present no options to the users" too far! Idiots!
It's a frickin' screensaver, dude. It saves old CRTs from pixel burn-in.
Surely there are worthier issues to get upset about? No?
On 2/17/06, Konstantin Ryabitsev icon@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Miles Lane wrote:
Personally, I think the Gnome developers' know-it-all attitude is stupid and offensive. Dang it! They take their bloody "present no options to the users" too far! Idiots!
It's a frickin' screensaver, dude. It saves old CRTs from pixel burn-in.
Surely there are worthier issues to get upset about? No?
It's a bigger issue of empowering users. It is a pattern of limiting user control in favor of developer control. It is the dumbing down of the UI to prevent users "running with scissors." Guess what, most Linux users know how to use scissors safely. Sure, I want Linux to succeed in the world of computer Newbies, but just give me the option to enable more advanced settings and I will be perfectly happy.
Not that it really matters for the sake of argument, but Linus Torvalds has similar concerns about Gnome. He a pretty reasonable guy, fwiw.
Miles
Miles Lane wrote:
It's a bigger issue of empowering users. It is a pattern of limiting user control in favor of developer control. It is the dumbing down of the UI to prevent users "running with scissors." Guess what, most Linux users know how to use scissors safely. Sure, I want Linux to succeed in the world of computer Newbies, but just give me the option to enable more advanced settings and I will be perfectly happy.
It's too bad that GNOME is the only desktop environment out there, and thus must suit everyone. That's exactly the reason why they have been slapped with monopoly charges -- for repeatedly taking away choice from their users who have no alternatives to turn to. At least they have been good about full refunds, otherwise it would be nothing short of racketeering.
Not that it really matters for the sake of argument, but Linus Torvalds has similar concerns about Gnome. He a pretty reasonable guy, fwiw.
Linus is an excellent kernel developer, but not god. He's not even pope. His opinions on things other than kernel development, while welcomed, carry exactly as much weight as anyone else's.
David D. Hagood wrote:
Why is xscreensaver removed in favor of gnome-screensaver? gnome-screensaver does not do DPMS, so my monitor stays on all the time boiling the cathodes away. gnome-screensaver doesn't have the eyecandy that xscreensaver has. In short, it seems a far less capable replacement.
So why was xscreensaver removed?
Good question regarding removal of a better product for a scaled down and less configurable product. I prefer xscreensaver over gnome-screensaver myself.
Gnome-screensaver was improved to have the ability to use xsreensaver items if installed. Not including the xscreensavers package at all would make Linux look more homogenized with MS Windows. Though xscreensaver is highly an eycandy item, Windows does not have such attractive features. Xscreensaver should stay at least for a marketing item to attract users from Windows to Linux.
I guess xscreensaver is still available for Linux. The program most likely will become available from other sources quickly.
I'm still removing gnome-screensaver in favor of xscreensaver.
Jim